Posts
All Comments
I watched this today and found it to be just as Kevin DeYoung concluded: not much accomplished. The reason I still put it up on my blog is that it will show you some of the oddities that come when trying to discuss specifics with those in the emergent movement.
It is no surprise that we are seeing the rise of postmodern thinking as everything old gets repackaged someday.
That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"? Already it has existed for ages Which were before us. There is no remembrance of earlier things; And also of the later things which will occur, There will be for them no remembrance Among those who will come later still.
Ecclesiastes 1:9-11
It seems though that things get repacked quicker these days though. Modernism came from the stems of the Enlightenment and it seems as though we are already seeing modernism repackaged in our postmodern "friends." What is interesting is that as you read quotes from dead guys like Machen, it sounds like they could be speaking today. If I were to give you the quote below and put David Wells' name behind it, or Tim Keller's name behind it, speaking about postmoderns you probably wouldn't even blink. But the amazing thing is that this is a quote to the moderns back in Machen's day in the early 20th century. This comes from the book that I am currently reading, which is very good by the way, titled, "Jesus: Made in America" by Stephen J. Nichols.
"There is a profound difference, then," Machen observes in Christianity and Liberalism, "in the attitude by modern liberalism and by Christianity toward Jesus the Lord. Liberalism regards him as an example for faith; Christianity, the object of faith." Then he puts it with a bit of rhetorical flourish, "Liberalism regards Jesus as the fairest flower of humanity; Christianity regards Him as a supernatural Person." Machen is not denying the role of Christ as example. In fact, he states, "The imitation of Jesus has a fundamental place in Christian life; it is perfectly correct to represent Him as our supreme and only perfect example." Machen further observes that Christ did not come to offer mere guidance; he came to offer salvation. Here Machen finds himself to be in good company, as he notes, "Not the example of Jesus, but the redeeming work of Jesus, was the primary thing for Paul." Building on this, Machen proceeds to argue that it was not the faith of Christ, but the faith in Christ. Christ is not, in Machen's words, the example of faith but faith's object.
Machen drives this latter point home in What is Faith? in a chapter he entitled, "Faith in Christ." He states the problem this way, "The truth is that in great sections of the modern church Jesus is no longer the object of faith, but has become merely an example for faith; religion is based no 
longer upon faith in Jesus but upon a faith in God that is, or is conceived to be, like the faith that Jesus had in God." Machen further takes on the theological complacency of Fosdick and others. He writes, " 'Let us alone,' some devout pastors say, 'we are preaching the gospel; we are bringing men and women in the Church; we have no time for doctrinal controversy; let us above all have peace'...'Let us sink our doctrinal differences.'" Machen responds by noting sympathy with such concerns and even that he understands some speak such words sincerely. He concludes, however, "But for us, and for all who are aware of what is really going on, the policy of 'peace and work,' the policy of concealment and palliation, would be the deadliest of sins." Not because Machen relished a good fight but because maintaining "the redemptive religion known as Christianity" was at stake.
Jesus: Made in America, by Stephen J. Nichols, pgs. 117,118
This book was written by two guys who couldn't be more different in their background and writing styles. Kevin DeYoung is the young, Reformed pastor, that takes this subject on a very subjective theological level, exposing carefully the doctrinal errors found in the Emergent church. Ted Kluck is just the opposite. Also, young, but a former athlete (he would love to hear that I said former), former semi professional football player, current sportswriter, and unapologetically sarcastic and whimsical. He takes on the subject much like I would, exposing the errors with witty banter and "low hanging fruit."The book layout was great. Each author took a subject and then the chapters went back and forth throughout. So, you would get hit with the longer, theological, linear chapters of DeYoung, and then read the shorter stories and witty rebuttals from Kluck. I really enjoyed this as you really got the feel from two totally different perspectives of what is going on in the Emergent church. The book's purpose is to really help people just better understand what the Emergent church is and what it does, or maybe better put, doesn't stand for. The main people that are refuted would be the same if you looked on any blog, namely, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and Tony Jones. What seemed to be the main focus of the entirety of the book would be the Emergent's focus on Kingdom living, instead of the totality of the work of Christ. In other words, more focused on morality, than understanding what is the first importance: the gospel. DeYoung and Kluck came to the same conclusion that I have with the Emergent church and others that think just like them, which would be the fact that they are reacting to the more fundamental, legalistic churches, but doing so in the wrong manner. DeYoung and Kluck show that some of the questions that the Emergents bring to light are true and helpful to/against the mainstream church in America, but the way that they answer those questions are not only wrong, but actually harmful, and in some cases, flat out heretical. The authors did much research for the material, so much so that they went to the different churches and events of this movement to "get their hands dirty". I found this book very helpful and know that those who are in the Emergent church will just see this as another "conversation" not worth having. But, for those who are on the fence or are starting to understand the Emergent problems, will find this a very helpful book on understanding the things that are going on with the Emergent leaders. Actually, the best part of the book was in the epilogue, when DeYoung went through the churches in Revelation with special focus on Ephesus, Pergamum and Thyratira. This part was very balanced and showed how every church should try to take the good out of each of these churches and learn from them and also learn from the admonishment that Christ gives each as well. Of course, in the end, the idea was for the Emergent church to take a look at what is missing in their movement, which would be the very strongest part in the Ephesian church: defense of doctrine. I would highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to understand the Emergent church in more detail. I just hope that people are able to learn from this book from within the movement and it isn't just used as ammunition to debate with. Link to Buy
